*1 Protection. for Appeal dismissed of from Ct. N. J. want Sup. substantial federal question.
No. 88-477. Monastero Appeal v. Nebraska. from Neb. Sup. Ct. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
No. 88-478. Sterner Appeal Jones for jurisdiction. Ct. Va. dismissed want of Treating the , appeal whereon the was taken of papers petition as writ certiorari, certiorari denied. Daugherty Florida A-363. and Daugherty Dugger, Secretary, No. A-366. Florida
Department of Applications stay Corrections. execu- death, Kennedy, tion of sentence presented to Justice and Court, him referred to the Justice Stevens would grant applications. Brennan,
Justice with joins, whom Justice Marshall II, whom Justice joins with Blackmun as Part dissenting. I Adhering my view that the death all penalty is in circum- stances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendments, Fourteenth Gregg Georgia, 153, 428 U. S. I stay would grant execution.
II Even not view, of the foregoing would vote to grant Mr. Daugherty’s applications of execution and hold his case pending our decision in Adams v. (1988).
cert.
In September year, this Preston v. 1265, 487 on the assumption that we would hold Preston’s case pending decision Adams. In Pres- ton, the prosecutor and trial had made statements empha- *2 that sentence was sizing jury’s merely the advisory and that the remained for the judge responsible sentence ultimately imposed. Since we the without knowing precise the nature of (neither those remarks party quoted us), them to we do not know whether the statements made at Daugherty’s sentencing hearing were any different from those made at Preston’s. Given this un- certainty, we are hardly in a position deny to Daugherty’s applica- tion for a on the ground claim, that Preston’s Caldwell Cald- well v. Mississippi, U. S. 320 was more substantial than Daugherty’s. case,
In this the prosecutor jury told that that its verdict was “advisory,” “final say” that the trial had the as to the judge sentence, will person and that the “is the last who consider judge what the thus serves as a “buffer” penalty is to be” and to going 17. Application make sure that not occur. Several mistakes do Adams facts simi- present strikingly cases that we have held for 88-5582, for example, lar to No. the Dugger, these. In Ford v. “advisory” that its sentence was judge jury told the several times Cert, 88-5582, in No. and “not Pet. binding on the court.” Ohio, 88-5169, judge the stated that the p. 11. In No. Spisak recommendation,” that, a jury’s “just recommendation was the court.” Pet. for upon law placed that “the final decision is Cert, in 88-5169, jury The Grossman in No. 15. p. 88-5136, prosecutor “judge the that the is the No. learned from sentencing “ultimately passes decision and one” who makes the him that sentence,” jury’s only, that “recommendation to is the (that is, recommendation,” “the will im- judge a do that” Cert, 88-5136, 10; death), in p. the sentence of Pet. for pose told, judge jury: you in the told the “As have been the response, as to what shall be the punishment imposed respon- final decision is Id., Finally, the at 11. in Harich v. sibility judge.” 88-5216, jury told the that its verdict merely the was Court,” to the that the court “pronounces “recommendation what- fit,” penalty ever sentence it sees that “the is for the court to de- cide,” “final decision as to . . . . . . punishment and that the rests Brief in in No. solely upon judge.” Opposition p. 3. that the case jury Daugherty’s unable to conclude received a am the juries different that received message significantly Grossman, Ford, and Harich. Spisak, four cases and this one is that between those The difference Mr. Daugherty’s issued for whereas warrant has been however, none had been I hope, issued in those other cases. that We held this does not for us as a difference. count relevant Ford, Grossman, and Harich Spisak, reason; held them because our decision in Adams on, or de- light shed new might stroy courts below. We did not altogether, the conclusions of the to unlikely change refuse hold their them because results Adams. is that, after whether question think where should willing a man dies, lives or be if more allow anything we should that a on his case. pending case shed new might light
In any event, Preston, an case, application like this involved a stay we granted it. —and Hopkins. re In Disbarment en-
tered.
No. D-726. In re Disbarment of Chowaniec. Disbarment herein, [For entered. 487 1249.] see U. S. No. D-727. In re Disbarment of Blumthal. 1249.],
entered. earlier 487 order U. S. In re Disbarment of Smith. It is ordered that Russell B. III, Houston, Tex., Smith be from the suspended practice of law in issue, this Court a rule returnable within days, him to requiring why show cause he should not be disbarred practice of law in this Court. City
No. 87-1022. Board Estimate of New York et al. Morris al.; et
No. 87-1112. Ponterio al. et v. Morris A. 2d Cir. C. noted, jurisdiction [Probable U. S. Motion appel- 986.] lant Frank V. Ponterio divided and for additional argument timé for argument oral City
No. 87-1437. et Blanton v. Vegas, North Las Nevada. granted, [Certiorari Ct. Nev. S. 487 U. 1203.] City Nev., Motion Vegas, of Las for leave to oral participate argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied. No. 87-1614. et al.; Martin Wilks County,
No. 87-1639. Personnel Board of Jefferson Al- abama, Wilks Arrington No. 87-1668. al. Wilks et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioners [Certiorari to file a reply granted. leave brief out of time